Dont' forget the roadside

On some occasions those Gypsies and Travellers who have no authorised pitches and who have to resort to unauthorised encampments can be forgotten. They may find it difficult to attend meetings or take part in consultation processes due to the frequent possibility of eviction. Now that we are more than 3 years beyond the publication of the ODPM Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites ( or some two years beyond the publication of the Welsh Circular WAG 30/2007.

It is increasingly relevant to point out to local authorities, when Gypsies and Travellers on roadside encampments are in locations which are not in themselves unacceptable, that there seems little point in evicting them when we are meant to be moving towards the finalisation of a process to identify locations for permanent and temporary sites and for emergency stopping places.

The previous case of R (Casey and Others) – v – Crawley Borough Council indicated the importance of local authorities taking account of the possibility of alternative locations when they are considering whether or not to evict an unauthorised encampment. This must now be an essential part of the process. Indeed this is intricately linked in with the question of what happens when unauthorised developments have been unable to obtain planning permission (see the previous blog, Dale Farm – Where to next?).

This is also intricately linked in with the question of homelessness. A Gypsy or Traveller on an unauthorised encampment is homeless within the terms of the legislation because he or she does not have an authorised place where he or she can put his or her caravan. This would entitle that Gypsy or Traveller to make a homelessness application to the relevant local authority. In making this application the Gypsy or Traveller concerned will not usually be seeking bricks and mortar accommodation but will be seeking an authorised pitch or stopping place.

If a Gypsy or Traveller made such an application, it would seem unreasonable if the local authority concerned also sought to evict that same Gypsy or Traveller from an encampment (unless there was some question of serious nuisance, obstruction or disturbance or a completely inappropriate location).

Additionally the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in recent decisions seems to make it clear that, when dealing with potential eviction, a landowner or landlord ought to clearly explain why such a process might be required and/or to enter into a balancing exercise between, on the one hand, their need for possession and, on the other hand, the needs of the person or the family being evicted.

In the case of Cosić – v – Croatia (App No 28261/06, 15th January 2009) the ECtHR stated:- “…..the loss of one’s home is a most extreme form of interference with a right to respect for the home. Any person at risk of an interference of this magnitude should in principle be able to have the proportionality and reasonableness of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under article 8 of the convention, notwithstanding that, under domestic law, his or her right of occupation has come to an end” (paragraph 22).

The basic message is: every potential eviction situation should be carefully examined as to its proportionality and reasonableness. It must be the case that the days of “zero toleration” are at an end.

The Travellers Advice Team at Community Law Partnership runs a Community Legal Advice funded Telephone Helpline which is available Monday to Friday 10.00 am to 1.00 pm and 2.00 pm to 5.00 pm on 0845 120 2980.

Chris Johnson